"Sugarbabies" / "Arrangements" Amateurs or Not?

Just a quick note to say thanks for all the kind words of support in PM in the last day or so, but wanted to let you know some of you have full inboxes so I was unable to reply there and wanted to let you know I wasn't ignoring your notes. - JL.

[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2591799]I honestly have never seen my name on a hotel TV (but then I rarely watch it when traveling). I have had a few that like to pick up the remote and start flipping though. Do you mean the guest's name broadcast on a channel by the hotel, or something like a card with the wi-fi instructions sitting near it?[/QUOTE]Some higher end hotels have the option of bringing up your bill and other info on the television screen via the menu.

Hey guys. I found an intriguing person on SA whose handle is the same as the name of our fair state. Pic attached. Anyone have a dream they can share?

Thanks,

Niceguy.

[QUOTE=TomDickNHarry;2591380], have any of you who have read the SB blogs heard of them being told to check the hotel TVs to get our real name? Made the mistake of leaving one in the room recently, she's inexperienced I'm relatively certain in not only being in hotels but also arrangements, and don't think there's any chance she'd know to do this without reading it somewhere. [/QUOTE]You can find that sort of skull duggery from P I 101, not just an SB site or thread.

They way I see it, she is pretty much going to find out if she wants to. I'm in the hotel business, and while hotels strive to keep their guest info confidential (hello Erin Andrews) there are just too many ways for that to fall apart and you to be outed. Simply picking up the phone will get the front desk to read the DID and greet you with "Hello Mr. Whorebanger, how can I help you?

If the woman has as much to lose as you do (career, marriage, reputation) then you can rely on the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction to keep both of you in check and you can be less concerned about her finding stuff out about you.

I try to avoid the very young, stupid and barely employable -- they hve everything to gain, from pregancny, info etc.

[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2591799]I honestly have never seen my name on a hotel TV (but then I rarely watch it when traveling). [/QUOTE]As part of their integrated friendliness, hotels now have a personalized greeting on the Welcome Screen when you turn on the TV. It will say something like "Welcome Mr. Haywood Jablome, enjoy your stay".

Many even offer video check out and your folio is displayed with your full name and registration information (depends on the system).

So while you are squeezing out that massive dump between dipping your wick in some hottie, she can turn on the TV, flip to video check out and get everything she wanted to know about you, including your real email address in some cases (it asks if you want the receipt emailed to you, and you confirm the address).

[QUOTE=ArcherSterling;2591942]As part of their integrated friendliness, hotels now have a personalized greeting on the Welcome Screen when you turn on the TV. It will say something like "Welcome Mr. Haywood Jablome, enjoy your stay".

Many even offer video check out and your folio is displayed with your full name and registration information (depends on the system).

So while you are squeezing out that massive dump between dipping your wick in some hottie, she can turn on the TV, flip to video check out and get everything she wanted to know about you, including your real email address in some cases (it asks if you want the receipt emailed to you, and you confirm the address).[/QUOTE]Man, I must be old school then, I've never seen this. I don't even check out (unless I'm extending the stay), I just throw the keys on the table and leave the door locked.

I would complain to the hotel that it's a security / privacy issue if I saw something like that. Hell half the hotels I've stayed in over the last couple of years don't even have HD yet, and they spent money on something useless like that?

One possible solution: Take along an AppleTV/Chromecast/Roku or something similar to hook up to the TV while she's there. Maybe not even hook it up, just leave everything disconnected and say its a work in progress and you didn't have time to hook it all up and get it working yet. Just plug back in after she leaves. Display porn on an iPad or something if she wants to watch TV.

[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2591950]Man, I must be old school then, I've never seen this. .[/QUOTE]Guys like us don't take sb's to them there "High Dollar" hotels and stick to the economy class. Seriously, its not like a girl cares for the 2-3 hours you spend there (as long as the sheets look clean). Of course, there are also the guys that are giving their ladies 1000 per visit, maybe those women do care (probably not).

[QUOTE=Beachesnole02;2592007]Guys like us don't take sb's to them there "High Dollar" hotels and stick to the economy class. Seriously, its not like a girl cares for the 2-3 hours you spend there (as long as the sheets look clean). Of course, there are also the guys that are giving their ladies 1000 per visit, maybe those women do care (probably not).[/QUOTE]In my case whenever I'm doing SD related travel, I tend to stay somewhere nice just because part of the reason for the trip is my own "vacation" enjoyment. I don't really do it for the girls benefit as much as I just like a nice location / nice room where I know I'm not going to be adopting bed bugs during my stay, and knowing I can park a nice car in the lot without it getting broken into.

It's very possible that some these places had this on screen and I just didn't notice it. The last place I went was actually a condo that was booked like a hotel, managed like one (pick up keys at off site management office desk) but independently owned (cable and Wi-Fi provided by the owners), so I'm sure that place didn't have it. GF and I did watch TV a bit at that place.

I'm definitely going to pay more attention to this after reading about it in this thread though. In a world of identify theft and privacy issues, I'm surprised hotels would do this. I just don't see the benefit.

Hear, hear!

[QUOTE=Smokarz_XO;2590862]Haven't check in for a day or two, and did this thread turned into a children's playground?

Can we please get back to our regularly "young pussies exploitation" programming?

THANK YOU![/QUOTE]

So how safe are any of the Sugar Sites? Shall we ASS-ume that SA etal will also be hacked sometime? What say you tech savvy guys? Can any organization be protected?

Suicides are starting apparently and world opinion is, of course due to the nanny state and moralists, against the victims (hackees) and not the true criminals -the hackers. Marital infidelity is not against the law last time I looked. Stealing Corporate information and identity theft is. Hopefully the hackers will be caught and punished. Some wealthy and possibly dangerous aggrieved parties might get to them before LE does.

[QUOTE=FredMoore;2592106]So how safe are any of the Sugar Sites? Shall we ASS-ume that SA etal will also be hacked sometime? What say you tech savvy guys? Can any organization be protected?

Suicides are starting apparently and world opinion is, of course due to the nanny state and moralists, against the victims (hackees) and not the true criminals -the hackers. Marital infidelity is not against the law last time I looked. Stealing Corporate information and identity theft is. Hopefully the hackers will be caught and punished. Some wealthy and possibly dangerous aggrieved parties might get to them before LE does.[/QUOTE]The sugar sites are no safer than AM. Everything is hackable given enough time / resources / talent. Even if something is secure today, the landscape around it changes such that it may be less secure tomorrow. The reason sugar sites are slightly more safe from this particular attack is that it would take a group of morality police with a different agenda to feel they are a target and go after them. Something could make them want to, such as too much media attention or the realization that so many of its users are married.

But compared side-by-side, a group of hackers smart enough to get in the first place in might surmise "well there might be some illegal or unethical activity that takes place, but there is nothing immoral about the fundamental concept behind it and since many male and female users may be benefitting it is best left alone rather than punish all for the crimes of a few". However, its just as possible that a group of hackers gets even more angry at the idea of older men dating young girls that they decide to do something about it.

Unfortunately the laws of the USA aren't what motivates this sort of "hacktivism". Supposedly the AM attack originated from the Netherlands of all places, and they let you window shop for hoes over there.

But remember there are people in various countries that think all women (including those in our country) should be covered in a shawl at all times. Could they decide that the SD sites are contributing greatly to moral corruption and must be stopped? Of course they could.

Ok guys I am back from a little work trip and catching up on posts. I Had a hugely successful date with the Pot from last week. We had our first M&G. Went to dinner at a local date spot. She looked great and we ended up back at my place for almost 3 solid hours of getting sweaty. You'd never know it talking to her, but what a little nympho. My only concern is that she is on the young side for me. Only 20. I rationalized right past it though "seem mature for her age" LOL. Definitely going into the permanent rotation.

[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2592024]
I'm definitely going to pay more attention to this after reading about it in this thread though. In a world of identify theft and privacy issues, I'm surprised hotels would do this. I just don't see the benefit.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the thoughts all. Yeah, I don't stay in super upscale places, but most of the newer SB's at least the first time or two in my experience or not looking to go sleazy on the FC, later that works but I don't take that risk for 1st time when I have a choice piece. Still, I'm not at the Ritz or anything, but even an average hotel has guest info on the tv.

Asking be / see just looking at the older part of the thread where they were reading some of the sugar blogs, which I haven't spent much time on. This girl was younger, not experienced on hotel stays or PI type stuff so don't think she would've gotten the idea on her own. But I do know she checked out some sugar blogs. So she'd only know to do it if she read it there. Between the TV, the phone, the bill under the door, I never let them stay in there by themselves, this was a rookie mistake.

[QUOTE=FScott;2591656]

As an interesting aside, when I pointed out how many SBs there were in the Chicago area in general, she said that was kind of frightening to her, and one of the reasons she wants to be selective. Apparently a good percentage of the women she works with, and knows socially, have some kind of STD, and she just figures that if there are thousands of babies in our area, a lot of them have something communicable as well. Gives one pause, does it not?
[/QUOTE]Depends on what her friends consider a STD. HPV, and HSV-1 (herpes) are both incredibly common and are STDs. Low risk HPV has a prevalence of 42% and high risk is 23% (much higher for younger women). HSV-1 has a 92% prevalence (but experts argue over that number). I've known a few women who break down in tears when told they have HPV (even the low risk types) until they google it and see how common it is.

So I am chatting up a POT online.

And we agree to meet. Asked if she has met men from SA before, and she said yes, a few one time hookups.

Few more messages and she says "just so you know, I have herpes. Not active, no flare ups, taking meds, blah blah blah, but just so you know in case its a problem".

So here is the logical problem. We use protection to prevent pregnancy because we don't believe the girl is on birth control AND to avoid possibly catching an STD. If she would lie about Birth Control, she would lie about being disease free in many instances.

So if we are "protecting" ourselves against women who MIGHT have this or that or MIGHT lie, is that protection not equally effective if the girl is NOT lying and tells you she has an STD. Logically, we are assuming ALL WOMEN might have an STD, so we are protecting ourselves. But how many men would actually fuck a woman KNOWING she had herpes. Probably next to none, at least not in hobby world. Why, because you are exposing yourself to a medical risk. But if you are "protected", the risk is the same since you have to assume someone who did not disclose might be lying.

Its like blackjack -- play like any card you can't see is a face card. Fuck like any woman you are fucking is NOT on birthcontrol or is NOT being truthful about her health status.

But that is not what we do. We kid ourselves and HOPE she is not lying about her disease-free state. But who amongst us would fuck the SB with herpes?